Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

BIM in off-site manufacturing for buildings MARK

a,⁎ a b
F.H. Abanda , J.H.M. Tah , F.K.T. Cheung
a
School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom
b
School of Engineering and the Built Environment, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The need to overcome challenges faced by construction industry has been at the core of many government
BIM reports. Most of the reports suggest the adoption of innovations including off-site manufacture and emerging
Challenges Building Information Modelling (BIM) to overcome the challenges facing the industry. Current research has
Construction industry largely focused on the impacts of off-site manufacture and BIM independently applied on traditional construc-
Off-site manufacture
tion methods. Due to the factory-based nature of off-site manufacture, the benefits of BIM on off-site manu-
Performance
facture have been widely argued to be far greater than those of traditional construction. However, studies about
impacts of BIM on off-site manufacture are scarce with far too many on traditional construction. This study
investigates the implications of BIM systems on off-site manufacture and traditional construction methods, with
emphasis on the technological potential of BIM for off-site manufacture. The specific objectives of the study are
threefold. Firstly, it examines how BIM can support off-site manufacture. Secondly, the paper discusses the
benefits of BIM and explains how BIM can overcome barriers hindering the uptake of off-site manufacturing.
Thirdly, due to the importance to measure the benefits to support wider adoption, an examination of the pub-
lished quantitative benefits of BIM on off-site manufacture and traditional construction is undertaken. A critical
appraisal of the literature was undertaken to achieve the aim of this study. The main findings are the identifi-
cation of qualitative and quantitative benefits of: BIM on off-site manufacture, off-site manufacture and BIM on
traditional construction. The findings reinforce the argument that BIM adoption on off-site manufacturing
projects is a rapid, efficient and one of the best ways to improve on the long standing challenges that have
plagued the construction industry for generations.

1. Background constraints. Most developing countries experience cost overruns ex-

The construction industry has been criticised for being inefficient;
often generating too much waste, emitting significant amounts of
greenhouse gases and consuming too much energy compared to other
industries. In both the public and private sectors, it is not uncommon to
find projects far exceeding budgets and deadlines. While such a char-
acterisation of the construction industry may slightly differ with dif-
ferent countries, the trend is largely similar. Therefore, the need for
innovation, e.g. BIM and off-site manufacture to improve performance
in the global construction industry is the same and has been long
overdue. Consequently, while most of the discussions here will focus on
the UK context, to gain other insights and perspectives, examples will
be drawn from developed and developing countries Sawhney et al.
[113] argued that the sector is confronted by numerous inefficiencies
like time and cost overruns, and irregularities in procurement. These
inefficiencies vary from country to country due to many factors in-
cluding environmental, topographical, technological and social
ceeding 100% of the initial project budget [85]. In Australia, Love [78]
found rework contributed to 52% of a project's cost growth and that
26% of the variance in cost growth was attributable to changes due to
direct rework. In Malaysia, approximately 75% of projects procured
traditionally incurred overruns of 10% or more while the corresponding
proportion for construction management and design-build was ap-
proximately two-thirds [119]. In the UK, the cost of Wembley stadium
overran by 50%; the Scottish parliament building had a time overrun of
more than 3 years and a cost overrun of 900% [79]. Based on mean
percentage overrun in Malaysia, an overrun of 38%, 39% and 50% time
overruns were experienced on infrastructure projects, health and office
projects respectively [119]. In Hong Kong, the average time overrun is
9%, 17%, and 14% for public building, private building and civil en-
gineering projects respectively [119].
Through various government commissioned studies, performance
targets have been proposed to improve the delivery of projects. The UK
Construction Strategy 2025 is amongst the most recent government

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fabanda@brookes.ac.uk (F.H. Abanda).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.10.002
Received 5 March 2017; Received in revised form 15 September 2017; Accepted 2 October 2017
Available online 06 October 2017
2352-7102/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.H. Abanda et al.
reports that require the industry to dramatically improve its perfor-
mance in four key areas by 2025. These areas include lowering
greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment by 50%, reducing
the initial cost of construction and the whole life cost of built assets by
33%, reducing the overall time, from inception to completion, for new-
build and refurbished assets by 50% and improving exports by 50%.
Achieving these targets is quite a huge challenge, especially given the
long standing fragmented nature and adversarial culture of the industry
that have hindered any meaningful progress for generations. Thus,
there have been calls for multiple complementary innovative initiatives
to drive efficiency and improvement in the industry for quite some time
now. Two main areas that the UK government identified as opportu-
nities to drive efficiency and improvement to the construction industry
are first, moving operations off-site according to Egan [39] and second,
the implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) strategy
published by Cabinet Office [24] in the UK. The most recent industry
report, titled “Modernise or Die”, commissioned by the UK Construction
Leadership Council published in October 2016 strongly recommended
the uptake of off-site manufacturing and BIM in order to improve the
performance of the construction industry [43].
The benefits of off-site manufacturing have been well-explored (e.g.
[70,69,73,63,124,102]). Common arguments for the off-site manu-
facturing choice over traditional construction on site according to the
literature include improved quality, good health and safety and better
working conditions, higher tolerances, lower costs and reduced labour
re-works, lower construction waste, simplified construction processes,
products that are factory tried and tested, predictable sustainability
performance, better control and consistency in products and processes.
Emerging BIM provides opportunities to leverage these benefits. It has
been argued that the biggest growth in construction productivity will
come from automated off-site activities that are facilitated by BIM [49].
In spite of this, studies about impacts of BIM on off-site manufacturing
are scarce. Benefit realisation has been one of the current topics about
BIM; but most studies are set on the basis of traditional construction.
The few studies that exist about BIM for off-site manufacturing often
focus on explaining the qualitative benefits. Understanding the mea-
surable benefits in implementing BIM in off-site manufacturing could
significantly improve its adoption and efficiency.
The remainder of this paper covers 8 different aspects of the study.
Firstly, a clear problem statement is presented. Following from the
problem statement, the method employed is presented. Thirdly, to fa-
cilitate understanding, definitions and related concepts of off-site
manufacturing and BIM have been examined. This culminated in the
establishment of the synergy between BIM and off-site manufacturing.
Fourthly, building on this synergy, an overview of some key BIM sys-
tems highly relevant to off-site manufacturing is presented. The drivers
for both off-site manufacturing and BIM, with emphases on the quali-
tative and quantitative benefits of BIM to off-site manufacturing and
traditional construction methods have been examined. Also, the find-
ings and implications of this study have been reported. Lastly, the
conclusion of this study is done by a way of summary with perspectives
on future research discussed.
2. Problem statement
An extensive literature review was undertaken to identify the gap
that underpins this study. The focus of the review was on BIM applied
on off-site manufacturing. The review yielded issues related to methods
of BIM deployment, ease of applications, comparative studies and
benefits of BIM in off-site manufacturing. Firstly, some studies ex-
amined the ‘methods’ of how BIM can be used in modelling and
managing off-site manufactured buildings. Samarasinghe et al. [112]
proposed a framework that illustrates how different BIM software sys-
tems have been used in the modelling of a prefabricated house in the
different phases of the construction life cycle. Sebastian et al. [115]
examined how BIM can be used to guide how the prefabricated
90
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
components should be put together to form a building. Secondly, some
studies focused on the ‘ease’ of incorporation of off-site manufacturing
and collaboration early on in the design and construction process using
BIM. Cowles and Warner [32] argued that the use of BIM made it more
effective to incorporate prefabrication and collaboration early on in the
design and construction process. Thirdly, some studies focused mostly
on ‘comparing’ traditional with off-site manufacturing and/or BIM
‘benefits’ to traditional or off-site manufacturing. Alaghbari et al. [8]
argued that off-site manufacturing reduces delays in delivery of con-
struction projects. Babič et al. [15] argued that the introduction of BIM
into the industrialised process can be considered easier than in the case
of traditional construction. This is because industrial or prefabricated
components can be developed into standardised BIM objects that can be
stored in a BIM object library and re-used in design later in future.
While in traditional construction most building parts are produced
onsite from its constituent materials and can only be designed in real
time from scratch without the possibility of picking any existing ones
from any repository. Nadim and Goulding [90] expanded on this by
producing a table that compares off-site manufacturing and traditional
construction. On the other hand, some studies simply state the ‘benefits’
of BIM in off-site manufacturing without necessarily comparing with
traditional construction. Mitchell and Keaveney [87] argued that the
implementation of a BIM system will increase the efficiency of Irish
contractors on design and build projects in terms of reducing man
hours, requests for information and rework, increasing on time com-
pletions and the ability to use more prefabricated elements.
This paper analysed previous studies according to a) the areas of
improvement and a) the extent of improvement to develop an under-
standing of the benefits. The areas of improvement reported include
structural appraisal [96], the impact of building orientation on energy
consumption [2], monitoring of schedule risk [74,88,99], assessment of
impact of occupants’ on energy consumption [3], construction safety
management [26,82], waste minimisation through deconstruction [6],
project planning [77], embodied energy assessment [118]. The extent
of improvement has been widely reported with more studies only
suggesting the benefits generically rather than systematically. Some
examples [37,59] have listed so many benefits without any critical
appraisal. For the studies that include measurement of the benefits ei-
ther using a qualitative or quantitative approach, there is hardly a focus
to distinguish whether the benefits are applicable to off-site manu-
facturing or traditional construction. As an example, Guo and Wei [50]
conducted an operational energy analysis of a building in National
Taiwan University using BIM without explicitly stating whether the
building was traditionally constructed or off-site manufactured. Fur-
thermore, benefits using a qualitative approach are typically subjective
and are limited to comparing the performance parameters of BIM.
Quantified benefits can be used to overcome the preceding challenge
associated but capturing measurable variables is a huge challenge
[140]. Perhaps partly because of the limitation in capturing measurable
variables, studies that show quantified benefits are scarce. To surmise,
what emerges from the preceding discussion is a distinct knowledge gap
in the alignment of BIM and off-site manufacture that reveals the
quantitative benefits of the former on the latter. Quantitative assess-
ments allow for objective evaluations of attributes to be undertaken
while the results are comparable [132]. In a recent study by Steinhardt
and Manley [122], it was argued that quantitative data allows a sys-
tematic comparison of the adoption of prefabrication by selected
countries.
3. Research methods
This study investigates the use of BIM in leveraging the benefits of
off-site manufacturing and further examines the quantitative benefits of
BIM on both off-site manufacturing and traditional construction
methods. The research framework used to achieve the aim of this study
is illustrated in Fig. 1.
F.H. Abanda et al. Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102

Fig. 1. Research framework.

Based on Fig. 1, five-step process is pursued to achieve the objec- defines off-site manufacturing as a delivery method that adds sub-
tives of this study. The first step consists of identifying relevant articles stantial value to a product and process through factory manufacture
about BIM benefits on traditional and/or off-site manufacturing. To this and assembly intervention [86]. The main types of off-site manu-
end, searches using smart key phrases were conducted in renowned facturing are panellised, volumetric, hybrid, modular systems and
peer-reviewed databases such as ScienceDirect, Emerald and Google components & sub-assembly systems. To facilitate understanding, some
Scholar. The key phrases used are “BIM for traditional construction”, other sub-concepts of off-site manufacturing discussed in Abanda [1]
“BIM for conventional construction” and “BIM for off-site manu- are presented in Fig. 2. It is important to note that similar concepts off-
facturing. To maximise the search results, key phrases around related site manufacturing have been examined in Ross [110] and Hairstans
terms or synonyms to ‘off-site manufacture’, e.g. off-site construction, [51].
pre-assembly (see Section 4) were also used in identifying literature Panellised systems are factory-produced flat panel units assembled
about the benefit of BIM on off-site manufacturing. In the second step, onsite to produce the 3-dimensional (3D) structure. The volumetric
each article was read and determined whether it was about off-site systems are factory-produced 3D units that enclose usable space but do
manufacture or traditional construction (see smaller decision operation
symbol in Fig. 1). Furthermore, a detail read of the articles was un- A:NHBC(2006) Thing
dertaken to establish whether BIM was used in any aspect in the con-
struction type (see larger decision operation symbol in Fig. 1). In the
third step, the articles were screened for relevance with focus on those
Volumetric
that discussed the benefits of BIM for traditional construction and/or Hybrid Modular
off-site manufacturing (i.e. BIM-enabled benefits) and other benefits of Site_based Panellised Sub_Assembly_Component
off-site construction over traditional construction not resulting from
BIM, called non-BIM benefits. Fourthly, the articles were classified ac-
cording to whether the content was about qualitative, quantitative Tunnel_Form Aircrete Open Closed Floor_Cassette Roof_Cassette
benefits or both. Lastly, based on the preceding step, the articles were
now classified according to benefits types (qualitative and quantitative)
+
versus construction types (off-site manufacturing or traditional con-
struction). The articles were mostly peer-reviewed journal and con-
B:Hall(2006) Thing
ference papers.

Volumetric Hybrid Panellised Sub_Assembly_Component

4. Off-site manufacturing

After the First and Second World wars, there was a significant Open Closed
shortage of labour and building materials. This stimulated research in
innovative methods of construction such as off-site manufacturing for
delivering affordable housing. Since then, different nomenclatures have
been used, albeit interchangeably for off-site manufacturing. These in- C=A+B Thing
clude off-site industrialisation [138], manufactured construction [12],
off-site fabrication, off-site construction, pre-assembly, pre-fabrication,
pre-work, modern methods of construction, system building, non-tra-
ditional building, industrialised buildings, standardised buildings and Sub_Assembly_Component Volumetric Panellised Modular Site_Based Hybrid
open building manufacturing [99,122,134,135,90], factory produced/
manufactured buildings [31], modularisation [95,58,76], pre-manu-
facture [43]. There are minor differences and context of use between Floor_Cassette Roof_Cassette Closed Open Tunnel_Form Aircrete
these appellations. Their detail examination is out of the scope of this
study. For consistency purposes, the general term ‘off-site manufacturing’ Fig. 2. A generalised ontology of off-site manufacturing concepts [52,94] [Source: re-
ported by Abanda [1]].
will be used. A recent study by the Construction Industry Council

91
F.H. Abanda et al.
not form the building structure, e.g. bathroom pods, plant rooms, lift
shafts, etc. Volumetric systems are also known as non-structural volu-
metric spaces [122]. The hybrid system is a combination of both the
volumetric and the panellised units/systems. Modular buildings are pre-
assembled volumetric units that together form the whole building (e.g.,
hotel modules) [99]. In some circumstances they might be additional
on-site works on modular buildings such as external brick skin and tiled
roof. Components & sub-assembly systems are factory-produced items
not regarded as full systems but they replace parts of the structure
normally fabricated onsite. Regardless of the appellation used, the ul-
timate goal of the technique is to accrue benefits such as a reduction in
construction time, construction waste, material waste, energy con-
sumption, labour demands and cost, and an improvement in project
constructability and cost certainty [138,101]. After providing an
overview of off-site manufacturing, a definition of BIM is examined in
Section 5.
5. Building Information Modelling
Building Information Modelling (BIM) is being hailed as a solution
to overcome age old challenges often associated with traditional
working practices in the construction industry. BIM has been defined
differently by different organisations. In the US, it has been defined by
leading organisations such as the National BIM Standard-United States™
[92], American Institute of Architects (AIA undated) [7]. In the UK, the
joint definition from Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Con-
struction Project Information Committee (CPIC) and buildingSmart
states “BIM as a digital representation of physical and functional
characteristics of a facility creating a shared knowledge resource for
information about it forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life
cycle, from earliest conception to demolition”. This definition is widely
used amongst professionals.
This study acknowledges the subtle differences between the various
definitions and their context of applications, which, nonetheless, are
outside the scope of the study. However, what is common in all the
definitions is BIM being acknowledged as a process, where BIM soft-
ware systems as technologies are enhancers of the processes. As a
system or technology, BIM is used to foster collaboration amongst
project teams and sharing of project information. Enhancing colla-
borative processes using BIM systems has the potential to (i) increase
productivity, efficiency, infrastructural value, quality and sustain-
ability; (ii) reduce lifecycle costs, lead times and duplications; (iii)
minimise or eliminate waste; and (iv) improve coordination between
design disciplines [30]. The strength of BIM systems is inherent in the
fact that construction consultant can construct a project in a virtual
environment before contractors can begin to construct it in reality
[126]. By having the possibility to build the whole project virtually
before physical construction begins, BIM adds a level of accuracy to
both quantity and quality issues that overcome shortcomings found
when traditional design methods are used [140]. This offers the pos-
sibility to make informed decisions in a virtual environment based on
the results of various iterations. The Cookham Wood Prison in Kent is
an example where informed decisions have been made virtually to
improve design [53]. Specifically, a walkthrough by the prison gov-
ernor and staff of the 3D model at the design stage so they could suggest
changes to suit their needs led to a saving of £800,000 [114]. BIM is
considered the key to driving other construction industry initiatives
such as lean construction, sustainability and off-site manufacturing.
6. Connection between off-site manufacturing and BIM
BIM can facilitate off-site manufacturing in many different ways.
BIM allows greater precision in specifying material requirements, which
can reduce over-ordering and thus decrease construction site waste.
Also, BIM can assist fabricators and contractors by providing a 3D
model of element positions. BIM can also store building information to
92
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
support maintenance of the building and eventual deconstruction and
material reuse at the end of life. Proper use of BIM technologies can
accurately represent geometry, behaviour and properties of individual
building components/objects and can facilitate their incorporation into
standardised building elements or volumes and made available digitally
[91]. The wealth of information contained within or linked to BIM
models allows the possibility for direct interfacing between designers,
suppliers, manufacturers and users. Ezcan et al. [42] argued that pro-
viding an improved design, facilitating collaboration and covering ac-
curate and extensive amount of information seem to be the most useful
benefits of BIM for bridging the off-site manufacturing implementation
gaps, avoiding longer lead-in times, high costs and modification pro-
blems. If BIM is used in modelling off-site construction components,
then designing and deploying off-site manufactured projects will be
easier. In a nutshell, Eastman and Sacks [38] characterise BIM as more
revealing and being able to depict the connection with off-site manu-
facturing by allowing “construction data to be machine processable and
components to be manufactured without human intervention”. In the
ensuing section, the different BIM systems that can support off-site
manufacturing will be examined.
7. Current BIM systems that can support off-site manufacturing
Successful off-site manufacturing is based on effective information
exchange between supply chains [10]. This requires efficient informa-
tion management systems such as BIM. As argued in [51], “in-
dustrialised processes require accurate and reliable information”. This
section examines BIM systems that can facilitate the efficient manage-
ment of off-site manufacturing information according to three BIM
implementation aspects: a) Existing software, b) Data availability and c)
Interoperability standards.
7.1. Existing software
BIM software packages are used in managing (i.e. modelling, ana-
lysis and sharing) project information, thereby fostering collaboration
amongst project teams. Although it is not so straightforward to de-
termine the number of BIM software types, buildingSmart has listed at
least 150 BIM software packages currently being used in construction
(http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/). An extensive review of the dif-
ferent BIM software has been reported in Abanda and Tah [4] and
Abanda et al. [5]. The most common are BIM authoring software
packages, e.g. Revit, Bentley, ArchiCAD; BIM project management/co-
ordinating software, e.g. Bentley Projectwise and BIM energy analysis
tool, e.g. Green Building Studio, EnergyPlus and Integrated Environ-
mental Solutions. Modelling buildings in these software, can allow
different project partners including clients to view and confirm or dis-
approve exact details and finishes virtually in the very early design
stage. This aspect of virtual visualisation and decision-making facil-
itates off-site manufacturing, where repetition of components and
processes are common [126]. When a component and/or process has
been virtually evaluated and found to be good, then it is simply re-
peated in factory conditions.
7.2. Data availability
A great advantage of BIM is that data in the form of objects can be
modelled and re-used in the design of buildings or in other applications.
BIM objects for buildings are akin to Lego blocks for houses, where
children use their initiative to assemble a house from Lego blocks.
While in the case of Lego blocks, they are poured from a bag and as-
sembled manually to form a house, BIM software are used in picking the
different BIM objects from BIM object libraries for designing a house.
These objects are generally stored in a library or repository within BIM
software installation folders or contained externally in some other or-
ganisation's storage systems. As an example of an installation-based
 Table 1
Examples of BIM object libraries.
F.H. Abanda et al.

Name Description Website/Source Free or fee

BIMObject This is an online system that contains building objects. The system can be accessed via the https://bimobject.com/ IFC, .RVT, .DWG, ARCHICAD Free/registration
website, web browser or directly within Revit. It was formerly called Autodesk Seek
SmartBIM This is an online system that contains building objects. The system can be accessed via the http://vimtrek.com/smartbim Revit Free
website, web browser or directly within Revit
Revit City This is an online system that contains free Revit families http://www.revitcity.com/index.php Revit Free/registration
Trimble 3D Warehouse (formerly called Google Warehouse) is an accompanying website for SketchUp where https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/?hl=en SketchUp Free
modellers can upload, download and share three-dimensional models
AirBus BIM Library (or BIM Stop) This is one of the largest online building product library containing read and edited by http://www.modlar.com/ SketchUp, Revit, Archicad Free
common BIM software packages such as Revit, ArchiCAD, Bentley, Vectorworks, including
any Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) compliant software packages and viewers
UK Ministry of Justice BIM library This library contains laundry rooms, gates and grills, cell doors, pairs of cell rooms HMYOI [55] IFC, Revit No information
NBS Library This is the primary source of free-to-use BIM content in the UK. It contains thousands of http://www.nationalbimlibrary.com/ IFC, Revit free
generic and proprietary BIM objects authored to the trusted NBS standard. The BIM objects
can be accessed from the website or through a plugin in Revit.
ARCAT This is a library of free BIM objects, families, and system files http://www.arcat.com/bim/bim_objects.shtml Revit (RVT, RFA), dwg files free
BIMETICA This platform contains generic BIM files in different formats http://bimetica.com/en/ Revit, Archicad, IFC, dwg Free/registration
Familit These are family files that can either be loaded using Revit family manager into a project or http://www.familit.com/index.php?dir=RFA-2010 RFA
saved externally. Families can be downloaded or uploaded on both - free & commercial
basis.
Sweets Network a growing library of high-quality models of proprietary building products from leading http://sweets.construction.com/QuickLinks/ RFA, TXT Free/registration
manufacturers for use in projects developed using Building Information Modelling (BIM) building-information-modelling-bim
software

93
BIMComponents.com The BIM Component database allows you to create, search, upload, and download custom https://bimcomponents.com/ Archicad Free/registration
BIM components of your choice.
Object Depository It contains free Archicad file-based objects http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/object_ Archicad
depository.php
Archibase.net Thousands of free objects in GDL format neatly categorized. Most of them seem to come http://archibase.co/ GDL format Free
from 3DS, so some of them are very polygon-heavy
ARCHICADo This contains 2D and 3D objects, mostly furniture and people http://archicado.free.fr/ 3ds Free
4DLibrary Comprehensive commercial library for the Australian market, including doors, windows, http://4dlibrary.com.au/library/ Archicad files Pay
stairs and more
ArchiRadar Large collection of specific objects http://www.archiradar.it/en/ Archidad, SketchUP files free
ARCHICADObjects This library contains details of construction objects including furniture http://www.archicadobjects.com/page/index.html Archicad files Free/registration
opengdl.org This library contains buildings components and furniture for building use http://opengdl.org/Default.aspx?tabid=987 Archidad files Free/pay
Archisolutions This library contains buildings components http://www.archisolutions.com/index.html Archidad files Free/pay
Skoldinov This library contains building models and components http://www.skoldinov.spb.ru/index.php?lang=en& Gsm files Free
lang2=ru
Rakennustieto This library contains mostly furniture http://www.rakennustieto.fi/kirjastot GDL and dwg files Free
Finstone This library contains stone objects that can be used in buildings http://www.suomalainenkivi.fi/kivirakentaminen/ GDL files Free
Eptar This library contains many rich building objects for buildings. Some of the objects are free http://www.eptar.hu/cadsupport.php ArhiCAD files Free/pay
and others are commercial.
Eptar This library is open sourced and contains BIM objects in various formats. http://www.eptar.hu/ ArchiCAD Revit, AutoCAD, 3ds Free
Max, Sketchup, Rino
Applecore This contains BIM objects http://store.applecoredownloads.com/bim- ArchiCAD files Pay
products/gdl-objects.html
Masterscript This library contains BIM objects. http://www.masterscript.nl/epages/78066077.sf/ ArchiCAD files Free/pay
en_GB/?ObjectPath=Categories
SmartGDL This library contains components for trees and road works. http://smartgdl.uw.hu/ ArhiCAD files Pay
Doclace This library contains very rich BIM objects. http://www.doclace.it/eng/dettaglio_download. ArhiCAD files Free
php?ID=1
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
F.H. Abanda et al.
repository, when Revit is installed a family of objects is also installed in
one of its folders. These objects can be used at any time and can be re-
modified before use in different applications. On the other hand, other
external repositories could be cloud-based open source. The most
common types of BIM libraries are examined in Table 1.
Based on Table 1, most of the libraries are open source online sys-
tems except the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ) library that is not yet
online and not clear whether it is free or not. Furthermore, some of the
free libraries require registration by end-users while others require
payment for specialised components. On exploring the libraries, the
following key issues can be noted:
• most organisations define a protocol that manufacturers design their
product to comply with before being uploaded to their repositories.
Some libraries generally contain generic BIM objects from different
countries (e.g. BIMObject) while others tend to be country specific
(e.g. NBS for the UK),
• there is a lack of standardisation of data structures and content for
BIM libraries,
• most object files are in their native file formats (ArhiCAD, GDL,
AutoCAD, Revit), with some in recommended exchange formats
such as IFC. For the objects to be used in building modelling these
have to be in file formats that can easily be processed by most
common BIM software,
• most of the libraries contain mostly components rather than whole
pods or volumetric units. In relation to the types of off-site manu-
facturing, most of the components can be used in panelised and sub-
assembly systems,
• the products contain geometric properties as a minimum. However,
there is a possibility of editing the properties and expanding the list
to include other required properties,
• other than the MoJ, it is not clear to what extent major construction
companies and clients have developed BIM libraries that contain
building components. This is not surprising as major companies are
now able to see the benefits of BIM [67] and perhaps partly because
of competitive advantage, do not want to share too many details
with their competitors [98].
7.3. Interoperability standards
The ultimate success in modelling building components or objects
for libraries depends on the ability to elicit all relevant data in the
object(s) and the ease with which the data-rich object(s) can seemingly
be exchanged between different project actors. Since the late 1990's, the
completeness of building design libraries have been investigated [97].
Based on this study, three factors required for free flow of information
were identified. These are: a) an information exchange format, b) a
specification exchange and c) a standard for the content of information
to be incorporated in objects. The importance of free flow of informa-
tion is a key principle of the UK National Building Specification (NBS).
It establishes minimum requirements for BIM objects and lays down the
foundations for robust and consistent information to be shared across
different platforms. The NBS has published a standard that defines what
constitute a high quality BIM object and provides consistency in the
content and structure of these objects [93]. The standard defines the
information, geometry, behaviour and presentation of BIM objects to
enable consistency, efficiency and interoperability across the con-
struction industry.
At least four types of interoperability exist in the literature. These
include syntactic, technical, semantic and organisation interoperability
[107,108,16,27,28]. For relevance and scope of this study, syntactic
interoperability will be adopted. It refers to the ability of two (or more)
separate systems or software programmes to communicate and ex-
change data (or information) with each other and use the data (or in-
formation) that has been exchanged [107,108,16]. The exchange be-
tween systems depends on the data file formats that facilitate import or
94
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
export into and from other computer systems. The concept of inter-
operability is quite important in off-site manufacturing if building
components with associated properties or data are to be imported into
or exported from different systems to be used for the design or devel-
opment of off-site manufactured projects. In general, different file for-
mats common in BIM can be categorised into three. The first file types
are native file formats usually restricted to a particular type of software.
For example, a building modelled in Revit will by default assume to be
“.rvt”, i.e. native Revit file extension. The implication of keeping files in
this format means only Revit software can read these types of files. If
any other software packages are to read Revit files, they must have been
specially designed to do so. The second category is file formats that
facilitate exchange of models between similar authoring software. The
most popular for geometric data exchange is the IFC. The third category
is file formats that are aimed for use in specialised applications (e.g.
gbXML and COBie). The Green Building XML schema (gbXML) is the
most popular file format used for building energy analysis. The Con-
struction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie) is a non-
proprietary data format often used in facilities management. The Na-
tional Building Specification requires a minimum of IFC and COBie data
to be captured in BIM objects [93]. This should be in addition to the
other information such as the supplier's or developer's information.
8. Drivers and constraints for the uptake of off-site manufacturing
and BIM
8.1. Qualitative benefits and barriers of off-site manufacturing using BIM
The vision set by the UK government, e.g. the time and cost targets
in Construction Strategy 2025 are very stringent. It will be difficult to
achieve them without improving both BIM and off-site manufacturing
implementation together. A capable workforce with appropriate skills
will deliver the much needed transformational change in the con-
struction industry including the implementation of BIM and off-site
manufacturing. Off-site manufacturing amongst others (e.g. lean con-
struction, sustainable construction practices), provides greater benefits
to achieve these targets. The benefits of off-site manufacturing have
been widely reported in literature [127,19,20,38,45,48]. Despite these
benefits, many barriers still exist hindering the uptake of
BIM [20,40,90,100]. BIM can be used to enhance existing benefits of
off-site manufacturing and can significantly contribute in removing
most barriers hindering the uptake of BIM. While most studies generally
report positive impacts of BIM on traditional construction, it can be
argued that the impacts on off-site manufacturing can even be greater
given off-site manufacturing already has so many benefits over tradi-
tional construction methods. That notwithstanding, there are already
some few studies discussing the impacts of BIM on off-site manu-
facturing (e.g. [127,91,61,72]). Thus it is important to view BIM as an
emerging paradigm that can be used to enhance existing benefits and
overcome existing challenges of off-site manufacturing. This is ex-
amined in Table 2.
8.2. Some quantitative impacts of BIM on traditional construction and off-
site manufacturing methods
While many studies (see Table 2) tend to report the benefits and
constraints of BIM on traditional and/or off-site manufacturing, most of
the benefits are not measured and thus, arguably are assertions. Ex-
pressions such as “BIM improves design reliability”, “BIM reduces de-
sign risk”, “BIM reduces waste”, “BIM enhances coordination and
minimises design errors”, “BIM reduces cost associated with planning”,
and so on, are very common in peer-reviewed literature. However,
there is hardly a mention of how much is the gain. This is partly due to
the challenges or lack of a common method of quantifying BIM benefits
[23]. Quantitative benefits constitute grounded evidence that can
convince prospective end-users including even laggards to adopt BIM
F.H. Abanda et al.
Table 2
Enhancing benefits and barriers of off-site manufacturing using BIM: a qualitative perspective.
Parameters Drivers and advantages of off-site
manufacturing
Quality Product (building components) tried and tested in
factory. Greater consistency, as same product types
are exactly identical; more control of quality
especially with regards to compliance with
standards [100,18,19,40]
Cost/value Lower preliminary costs, Increase certainty-less
risk, Increased in added value, Lower overheads,
Less on-site damage and Less waste [19,40]; Serial
productions leads to significant reduction in
formwork and hence cost [10]; Offer good
economic value [21].
Time Less time spent on site, Speed of delivery of
product, Less time spent on commission,
Guaranteed delivery- more certainty over the
programme and reduced management time [19,21]
Productivity Less nagging, Less site disruption, reduction in the
use of wet trades, removal of difficult operations
from on-site, Work being undertaken at the same
time both on-site and off-site [19]
People and Occupational Fewer people on-site hence reduced number of on-
safety and health site accidents. Off-site manufacturing is
(OHS) independent of local labour issues which can at
times be political [19].
Process Simplified construction process. Systems can easily
be measured and more accurately. Leads to quicker
completion which in turn reduces site disruptions
and hazards (e.g. decreased road closures) [19].
Logistics and site Fewer trades on-site leading to better coordination.
operations In remote areas where there is scarcity of trades,
off-site manufacturing components can be
transported from factory to site where the
components are assembled [18]. Off-site
manufacturing implies a reduction in site
disruptions, excessive subcontracting and spatial
requirements [11]
Lack of knowledge
Industry market culture
Social sustainability
Barriers and constraints
The image of off-site manufacturing is
coloured by the experiences of the past,
especially around 1960s where some
prefabricated buildings collapsed [128].
Perceived as expensive when compared to
traditional methods. High initial and set-up
costs [18]. Cranage costs can be very high
[18]. Intercity or county transport can be
very high and can negate any advantage [18]
The need for cranes for transporting building
components or whole buildings has safety
issues associated with their use [18]
Require more pre-planning on a project
which can potentially increase lead times and
may nullify any overall time advantages.
Generally very low level of IT integration in
the construction industry. Not flexible, does
not allow changes as too expensive once
manufactured [18].
Production facility logistics and stock
management difficult (e.g. limited access on-
site for manoeuvre, restricted access to site
for delivery, size of components)
Most professionals have not embarked on off-
site manufacturing because of lack of
knowledge about the benefits of off-site
manufacturing [128].
A very conservative industry. Professionals
very resistant to change.
95
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
How BIM can enhance the benefits and also
improve the barriers
Quality of data in BIM is improved and highly
accurate leading to improved quality of building
components [121,123,133]. Building or
components can be virtually built and tested in
the factory before erecting on site [117]. This
minimises errors that could possibly jeopardise
quality.
Clashes detected virtually leads to significant
cost savings [14,22]. Collaborative viewing of
models leading to improved communications
and trust between stakeholders and enabled
rapid decision making early in the process leads
to cost savings [14]. Efficient nD scheduling
leads to projects to be delivered in time and
budget [14]. Pre-design investigation that
prevents costly and time-consuming redesign at
later stages [14].
BIM provides opportunities to gain time in
delivering construction projects. Using
coordination resolution in pre-construction
requests for information (RFIs) and change
orders can be reduced to zero [22]. By exploring
nD models using BIM can lead to the
identification and avoidance of errors that
should have occurred during the execution of
real project [14,22].
Using coordination resolution in pre-
construction, RFIs and change orders can be
reduced to zero [121,22].
By modelling virtually and integrating with
Geographical Information Systems, safety can be
improved by anticipating problems on site
earlier in the planning stage [41,57]. Also,
automated safety checking platforms developed
in BIM systems inform construction engineers
and managers by reporting, why, where, when,
and what safety measures are needed for
preventing fall-related accidents before
construction starts [139].
The ultimate aim of BIM is to improve the
construction process. There are many
perspectives to this. By designing in 3D BIM
many other tasks are easily automated, e.g.
generating sections and views from a plan. The
model also enables new and existing assets to be
integrated seamlessly. Through collaboration, all
project partners – different design disciplines,
the customer, contractor, specialists and
suppliers – use a single, shared 3D model,
cultivating collaborative working relationships.
This ensures everyone is focused on achieving
best value, from project inception to eventual
decommissioning. During the execution of the
project, on-site activities can easily be managed
and more effectively. These, amongst others are
activities that improve the construction process.
BIM provides opportunities to coordinate supply
and site activities by integrating their decisions
and recognizing existing interdependencies to
minimise the total material management cost
[111,36].
Improves communication and collaboration
amongst project partners [133]
(continued on next page)
F.H. Abanda et al.
Table 2 (continued)
Parameters Drivers and advantages of off-site
manufacturing
Economic sustainability
Environmental Better management of site activities leading to
sustainability reduction in waste [134,135,18,29,40]. Cleaner
sites due to reduced number of on-site wet trades
[18].
Profit margin
Paper based design
Lack of available codes
and standards
Poor integration in the
supply chain
and off-site manufacture. The quantitative benefits off-site manu-
facturing over traditional construction, BIM for traditional construction
and BIM for off-site manufacturing will be examined in Table 3. It is
important to note that some related studies (e.g., [82,26,75,14,81,35])
failed to explicitly state the type of construction. Hence, it was difficult
to confirm whether quantitative benefits of BIM pertained to traditional
construction or off-site manufacturing. In cases of doubts or lack of
clarity about the construction types used, the quantitative benefit(s)
have been inserted in a merged cell under the traditional construction
and off-site manufacturing benefits’ of BIM in Table 3.
9. Key findings
In this work four main findings, one each related to off-site manu-
facturing and BIM and two emerging from the synergy between off-site
manufacturing and BIM were uncovered. The connections between the
findings depicted in Fig. 3.
Firstly, in addition to qualitative studies, this study identified
quantitative benefits of off-site manufacturing over traditional con-
struction. This is depicted as A in Fig. 3 with details explained in the
second columns of Tables 2, 3.
Secondly, the study builds on the qualitative benefits of BIM on
traditional construction, widely reported in the literature to expand on
the quantitative benefits of BIM on the same, depicted as B in Fig. 3,
with details explained the third column of Table 3.
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
Barriers and constraints How BIM can enhance the benefits and also
improve the barriers
Improves collaboration and communication as
well as early anticipation of problems reduces
undesirable waste due to improved construction
management and hence reduces project cost
[133]
Modelling building virtually allows for potential
mistakes to be identified before erecting the real
buildings. This minimises waste that would have
occurred as a result of a mistake(s). The quality
of design and construction of projects can also
improve better living environment [133]. BIM
can also be integrated with most environmental
standards (e.g. BEAM Plus, BREEAM and LEEDS)
for use in determining environmental
compliance [131,13,136,64]
Quick materials and quantities take-off allows
easier calculation of environmental impact
[102].
If project managers and quantity surveyors
understand nD modelling, they can better exploit
BIM tools to stay within schedules and minimise
waste. This can lead to increased profit margins.
Use of paper-based drawings inhibits off-site BIM significantly improves upon paper-based
manufacturing [127]. drawings through its digital representation of
buildings with rich data. A community cased
study project in Libreville, Gabon revealed that
BIM-based modelling significantly decreases
modelling time and increases model quality
[46]. By integrating a BIM-deconstructability
assessment score in a BIM software, automatic
capture of design parameters can be improved
leading to a reduction of errors that could have
been caused by manual editing of design
parameters [6].
Amongst 21 barriers to the uptake of off-site Some studies (e.g. [30,125]) have demonstrated
production, lack of codes and standards the use of BIM for compliance and code
topped the list [138]. checking. Should off-site manufacture adopt
standards and codes, then BIM can be used to
enhanced verification and compliance.
Amongst 21 barriers to the uptake of off-site BIM can be used to integrate supply chain which
production, poor integration in the supply improves performance [103].
chain was second on the list [128]
Thirdly, it emerged that despite the huge benefits inherent in off-site
manufacturing, there are so many challenges hindering its uptake.
These challenges have been discussed in the third column of Table 2.
BIM leverages the benefits and provides opportunities to further over-
come the challenges. Peer-reviewed literature that measure the impacts
of BIM quantitatively in particular on off-site manufacturing are very
sketchy. Demonstrating the quantitative benefits of BIM in delivering
off-site manufacturing has a dual potential in driving the uptake of BIM
and off-site manufacturing. This paper systematically collates the
quantitative benefits of BIM on off-site manufacturing in the fourth
column of Table 3. Furthermore, while the benefits of BIM for off-site
manufacturing has been widely acknowledged in the literature, re-
search about the technological potential of reaping the benefits are
sketchy. The few studies that have discussed this technological poten-
tial of BIM for off-site manufacturing are Samarasinghe et al. [112] and
Sebastian et al. [115]. This study highlights the synergies between BIM
and off-site manufacturing while detailing the technological potential
of BIM for off-site manufacturing in Section 7, captured as C in Fig. 3. In
Section 7, the strength of BIM as a federated model that contains in-
formation is a natural system for fabrication processes and facilitates
the construction of more complex components off-site than would have
been with 2D Computer-Aided-Techniques or traditional manual de-
sign. The publication of interoperable BIM components in open source
BIM libraries (see Section 7.2) is quite important in the design of off-site
manufactured buildings. This is because the interoperable BIM
96
 Table 3
Quantitative benefits of off-site manufacturing and BIM.

Parameters Benefits of off-site manufacturing over traditional construction Benefits of BIM for traditional Benefits of BIM for off-site manufacturing
construction
F.H. Abanda et al.

Safety When modular construction is used, on-site reportable accidents can
be reduced by 80% compared to onsite construction [68]. Studies
by Cao et al. [25] revealed that 6.61% reduction in health damage
for a sample prefabricated house in China compared to a
traditionally constructed house.
Waste 84.7% of construction waste can be avoided by adopting pre-
fabrication [6]. The use of precast construction can result in 52% in
construction, demolition and excavation waste [60]. Reduction of
site waste by 70% [109]. Prefabrication uses 35% less concrete,
25% less reinforcement, 40% less wastage of tile than in traditional
construction [124]. Prefabrication uses about 30% less site man-
power (in man-day) than in traditional construction [124].
Return on investment
(ROI)
Request for information
(RFI)
The implementation of BIM/virtual design and construction systems on the coordination of Mechanical,
Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) systems in a $96.6 million healthcare project in Northern California of
100% pre-fabrication only one recorded injury throughout the installation of MEP systems over a
250,000 square feet project area [65].
Using BIM 40% of potential fatalities in construction projects can be identified [82]. Using BIM at design can prevent 71% of safety incidents
(Gibb [45] and Chan et al. [26]). In Finland BIM adoption in housing projects have led to on-site accident reduction of 5% [35].
A BIM-based design validation can prevent between 4.3% and 15.2% of construction waste that might have been generated without the use of BIM
[130]. In Finland BIM adoption in housing projects has led to a waste reduction of 45% [35].
The return on investment (ROI) is 735% for an apartment block project of 57 units in Stockholm gained by the use of Virtual Design and
Construction (VDC)/BIM in the project [116]. Using 3 case studies, the ROI varied from 16% to 1654% out of 4 projects [44]. Azhar [14] reported
an average ROI on a number of projects executed using BIM of 1 663% with a minimum of 140% and maximum of 39 900%.
Due to the use of VDC/BIM, the total number of RFIs was reduced by 34% on a small tilt-wall project, 68% on a three-story assisted living facility,
and 43% on a midrise commercial condominium project [44]
The implementation of BIM/virtual design and construction systems
on the coordination of Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP)
systems in a $96.6 million healthcare project in Northern California
of 100% pre-fabrication produced only a handful of requests for
information for the coordination of the MEP systems between

97
contractors and the designers [65].
Design errors A BIM-based design validation was conducted on two residential The use of 4D Revit-based models can reduce mistakes to a greater
2
buildings of total floor area of 120,000 m led to the identification of 381 extent (twice as much) in construction processes and help in
design errors [130]. Similarly, the same BIM-based validation technique detecting and removing them more quickly [106].
applied to a sport complex led to the identification of 136 design errors
[130]. BIM can be used to automatically detect design-related errors by
issuing warnings for potential problems related to model elements [71].
Based on warning data collected from three California healthcare
projects, the analysis revealed that the 15–80 Pareto rule applies–15% of
the warning messages are responsible for nearly 80% of the warnings
[71]
Re-work The implementation of BIM/virtual design and construction systems on the coordination of Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) systems in
a $96.6 million healthcare project in Northern California of 100% pre-fabrication only one recorded injury throughout the installation of MEP
systems over a 250,000 square feet project area, 0.2% rework for the whole project for the mechanical subcontractor [65].
Change orders Due to the use of VDC/BIM, the number of change orders reduced by 40% on a small tilt-wall project, 48% on a three-story assisted living facility,
and 37% on a midrise commercial condominium project [44].
(continued on next page)
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
 Table 3 (continued)
Parameters Benefits of off-site manufacturing over traditional construction
Time The productive time can be improved by up to 12% [124]. The time
required to complete a regular modular house was 4 months
compared to 14 months for a similarly traditional or conventional
constructed house [137]
Shorter build times, typically 50–60% less than traditional onsite
construction [109]. Faster construction times by up to 50% [109].
Conventional fit-out time of 95–105 days from formwork stripping
to completion can be reduced to 30 days [21].
Space
Cost A reduction of capital cost by up to 10% can be achieved through
the use of off-site manufacturing [109]. A reduction of onsite labour
costs of up to 50% can be achieved through the use of off-site
manufacturing [104].
98
Profit margins
Labour saving Warszawski [129] reported that the benefits of industrialised
building include savings in manual labour on site (up to 40–50% of
the input in conventional construction), especially in skilled trades
such as formwork, masonry, plastering, painting, carpentry, tiling,
and pipe-laying (electrical and water supply).
Benefits of BIM for traditional Benefits of BIM for off-site manufacturing
construction
F.H. Abanda et al.
The implementation of BIM/virtual design and construction systems on the coordination of Mechanical,
Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) systems in a $96.6 million healthcare project in Northern California,
USA of 100% pre-fabrication led to 6 months’ savings on the schedule and about $9 M savings in cost
for the overall project [65]. In an experimental study carried out using Lego blocks by Reizgevičius et al.
[106], they argued that 4D Revit-based models can shorten construction time by 1/3. Shen and Issa
[120] demonstrated that the quantity estimation time of a simple cast-in-place concrete wall using BIM-
assisted systems is approximately 20.67 min compared to 27.58 min using manual estimating methods.
This time increases with increasing complexity of a building.
The construction of an apartment block project of 57 units in Stockholm was completed 20 days earlier due to the use of VDC/BIM [116]
A report that documented construction practices over several years, found that in 2009 the average duration of BIM projects was 27% shorter than
traditional projects. By 2012, BIM had widened the gap to 37%. This suggests that the advantages of BIM become more pronounced as users gain
experience and become more proficient with the technology. One survey even estimates that BIM's data sharing ability alone is enough to reduce
the duration of a single project by up to 7% [17]
Space savings between 1.5% and 54% achieved in standard kitchen design [54]
Average sized kitchen's capital cost reduced by approximately 5% [54]. A saving of 4% of total construction cost on apartment block project of 57
units in Stockholm [116]. A construction cost saving of between 8% and 10% for Royal Opera House and Portcullis House [47].
In the UK, the MoJ adopted BIM in delivering the Cookham Wood project (value of £20 million), that
yielded a 20% cost saving [55]. Also, through data sharing and collaborative working including the use
of BIM library, a four storey office building consisting pre-constructed units near the main terminal at
Stansted achieved cost savings of 9.8% on project cost and 18% in cost of drawing production [23]. Still
in the UK, a project extranet, used for information exchange, saved up to 50% of effort compared to
traditional methods on a £30 million retail development building project in Enfield, UK [23]. The
implementation of BIM/virtual design and construction systems on the coordination of Mechanical,
Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) systems in a $96.6 million healthcare project in Northern California,
USA of 100% pre-fabrication led to about $9 M savings in cost for the overall project [65].
In a modular healthcare facility in Charlotte, North Carolina of value $44 Million where BIM
implementation cost totaled $44,000 led to savings of $220,000 [80]
In Hong Kong, Lu et al. [81] found that by implementing BIM in delivering a public housing project, a 6.92% cost-saving was achieved. The use of
BIM in managing the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn in Atlanta, Georgia led to the overall cost benefit of over $200 000, attributed to the
elimination of clashes [14]. The use of BIM in the predesign stage of the Savanah State University in Savannah project in Georgia led to the cost
benefit was $1 995,000 [14]. The use of BIM in managing the Mansion on Peachtree project in Atlanta Georgia led to a cost benefit of $15,000.
In Finland BIM adoption in housing projects have led to the following benefits: increase profit margins of 45% [35].
Furthermore, the use of BIM for 4D simulation led to a project's direction to be shortened by 3 months. Also, some quantitative benefits of some
case study buildings have been reported in the US [14]. The use of BIM in managing the Aquarium Hilton Garden Inn in Atlanta, Georgia led to the
saving of 1 143 h from scheduling in BIM.
(continued on next page)
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
 Table 3 (continued)

Parameters Benefits of off-site manufacturing over traditional construction Benefits of BIM for traditional Benefits of BIM for off-site manufacturing
construction
F.H. Abanda et al.

Environmental Semi-prefabricated method (precast facades, precast staircase,

sustainability precast corridors) of a rental housing project produces less
greenhouse gas emissions per m2 than a residential project
constructed using a conventional method. The former produced
336 kg/m2 while the latter produced 368 kg/m2 [83]. Average
greenhouse gas emissions of modular buildings is estimated to be
nearly 6tonnes of CO2-eq less than that of traditional buildings per
186 m2 home [105]. Al-Hussein et al. [9] found that modular
processes led to a 43% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to
onsite processes. The energy consumption of a modular home is
4.6% less than that of a conventional or traditional home [66].
Studies by Cao et al. [25] revealed that a sample prefabricated
residential building (PRB) construction was more efficient, with a
20.49% reduction in total energy consumption, 35.82% reduction
in resource depletion, 3.47% reduction in ecosystem damage
compared to the sample traditional residential building (TRB)
construction. Studies by Ji et al. [62] revealed that 6 building
materials (concrete, cement, sand, steel, glass and brick) in precast
in-situ construction method was found to generate about 257.30 t of
embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per 1000 m2, whereas
the amount for conventional construction method was about
266.14 t per 1000 m2
Number of site workers 50% less onsite work, thus requiring fewer trade-qualified [104]
Number of journey to In Sweden, Skanska reported the use of iPad in sharing construction information reduced the number of journeys to site by a half [35].
sites

99
Clash detection Li et al. [75] demonstrated great potential in the use of BIM for MEP clash detection and 4D simulation. In the project of gross floor area
28,124 m2, the use of BIM to manage clashes led to time saving of 65.6 days.
By using the BIM model for a high school project, Gastonia, North Carolina, US, 258
conflicts were identified and eliminated during the design phase on a modular [80].
External scaffolding 100% external scaffolding is needed [124] No external scaffolding is needed [124]
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
F.H. Abanda et al.
A B
C comings. Most of the studies on the quantitative benefits of BIM were
OSM BIM
D not holistic and seldom considered the whole project life cycle of off-
Quantitative
benefits
Traditional
construction
Qualitative
benefits
Quantitative Qualitative benefits
benefits
Fig. 3. Relationships between study findings.
components underpin effective communication and information ex-
change between stakeholders involved in the delivery of off-site man-
ufactured buildings.
Fourthly, in addition to the benefits of BIM implementation on off-
site manufacturing, there are often low hanging fruits that are hardly
discussed. In bad weather conditions, such as extreme cold tempera-
tures in temperate regions or extreme hot conditions in tropical regions,
onsite construction activities are impeded leading to longer execution
time and hence budget overruns. In factory environments, the challenge
associated with the weather is avoided in both the temperate and tro-
pical regions. Using BIM in the off-site manufacturing in factory con-
ditions is an added bonus, captured in D of Fig. 3.
10. Conclusions
BIM is key in driving other innovative techniques currently being
pushed by the government in improving the performance of the con-
struction industry. Specifically, BIM is crucial in the use of off-site
manufacturing techniques, lean construction and sustainability in
construction. The strengths of BIM in containing data in interoperable
formats and managing huge projects are great assets in fostering col-
laborative practices in the construction industry which translates to
immense benefits to both traditional and off-site manufacturing of
buildings. Whereas there is a plethora of literature espousing the ben-
efits of BIM in traditional construction, there is a scarcity of literature
reporting the benefits of BIM in off-site manufacturing. This is not
surprising as off-site manufacturing has not been widely adopted de-
spite the benefits that it offers.
The systematic appraisal of the literature undertaken indicates that
despite the huge benefits inherent in off-site manufacturing, there are
so many challenges hindering its uptake. The literature also indicates
that BIM leverages these benefits and provides opportunities to further
overcome the challenges. The impacts of BIM on traditional construc-
tion have been widely investigated although they are largely reported
in very subjective qualitative rather than quantitative terms. These
quantitative benefits have been systematically collated in this paper
from the plethora of literature on the subject to aid understanding and
appreciation. A serious attempt has been made to elicit and present the
benefits of BIM in off-site manufacturing in quantitative terms despite
the scarcity of literature in this aspect. It is hoped that future studies
will make serious attempts in reporting the benefits in quantitative
terms. This would have the dual potential of driving up the adoption of
BIM and off-site manufacturing amongst construction stakeholders
especially clients. Recent studies still support the fact that lack of
knowledge about clear benefits of the former (e.g. [56]) and the latter
(e.g. [84]) is still a huge barrier towards their uptake.
100
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
It has been challenging to identify the benefits in quantitative terms
from the small number of reported studies due to a number of short-
site construction projects. Some studies failed to specifically state the
type of construction. Hence, it was difficult to confirm whether the
reported quantitative benefits of BIM were for traditional construction
or off-site manufacturing. Most studies do not reveal the level of pre-
fabrication or number of components that have been manufactured off-
site. Furthermore, the methodologies used in determining the quanti-
tative benefits are hardly discussed. The lack of methodological clarity,
auditing, validation and comparing results cannot be easily conducted.
From a methodological perspective, the desk-top method cannot pro-
vide clarify issues raised in the preceding sentences. Hence, there is
need to be cautious in the use of such findings and a straightforward
comparison between the different benefit values cannot be easily made.
Apart from a few exceptions, most literature tends to discuss only
positive benefits of off-site manufacturing and/or BIM. We note some
exceptions in Postnote [104] and Hairstans [51]. Postnote [104] argued
that construction of a prefabricated housing can result to a cost increase
of between 7% and 10%. Volumetric off-site manufactured units need
to consider the stability of 3 dimensional units before being transported
which often leads to over design [51].
The aforementioned limitations are important aspects that should
be considered in future studies and should be researched using more
advanced research methods other than a literature review.
References
[1] F.H. Abanda, Knowledge Modelling of Emerging Technologies for Sustainable
Building Development. A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Technology, Design
and Environment in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, Oxford Brookes University, England, UK, 2011.
[2] F.H. Abanda, L. Byers, An investigation of the impact of building orientation on
energy consumption in a domestic building using emerging BIM (Building
Information Modelling), J. Energy 97 (2016) 517–527.
[3] F.H. Abanda, L.F. Cabeza, Investigating occupants' behaviour using emerging
Building Information Modelling, in: Proceedings of the ICSC15 – The CSCE
International Construction Specialty Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 2015.
[4] H. Abanda, J.H.M. Tah, Free and open source Building Information Modelling for
developing countries, in: Proceedings of the ICT for Africa 2014 Conference,
Yaoundé, Cameroon, 2014.
[5] F.H. Abanda, C. Vidalakis, A.H. Oti, J.H.M. Tah, A critical analysis of Building
Information Modelling systems used in construction projects, Adv. Eng. Softw. 90
(2015) 183–201.
[6] O.O. Akinade, L.O. Oyedele, M. Bilal, S.O. Ajayi, H.A. Owolabi, H.A. Alaka,
S.A. Bello, Waste minimisation through deconstruction: a BIM based decon-
structionability assessment score (BIM-DAS), Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 105 (2015)
167–176.
[7] AIA, Preparing for Building Information Modeling, American Institute of
Architects, undated. (Online). 〈http://www.aia.org/practicing/groups/kc/
AIAS077631〉 (1/1/2015).
[8] W. Alaghbari, M.R.A. Kadir, A. Salim, Ernawati, The significant factors causing
delay of building construction projects in Malaysia, J. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.
14 (2) (2007) 192–206.
[9] M. Al-Hussein, J.D. Manrique, D. Mah, North Ridge CO2 Analysis Report:
Comparison Between Modular and Onsite Construction, University of Alberta,
Canada, 2009 ((Online) (04/09/2016)), 〈http://www.modular.org/IMAGES/
foundation/NorthRidgeCO2Report.pdf〉.
[10] L. Alvarez-Anton, M. Koob, J. Diaz, J. Minnert, Optimization of a hybrid tower for
onshore wind turbines by Building Information Modeling and prefabrication
techniques, Vis. Eng. 3 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40327-015-0032-4.
[11] M. Arashpour, R. Wakefield, N. Blismas, J. Minas, Optimization of process in-
tegration and multi-skilled resource utilization in off-site construction, Autom.
Constr. 50 (2015) 72–80.
[12] M. Arif, C. Egbu, Making a case for offsite construction in China, Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manag. 17 (6) (2010) 536–548.
[13] S. Azhar, W.A. Carlton, D. Olsen, I. Ahmad, Building information modeling for
sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis, Autom. Constr. 20 (2) (2011)
217–224.
[14] S. Azhar, Building Information Modelling (BIM): benefits, risk and challenges for
the AEC industry, Leadersh. Manag. Eng. 11 (3) (2011) 241–252.
[15] Č. Babič, P. Podbreznik, Rebolj, Integrating resource production and construction
using BIM, Autom. Constr. 19 (2010) 539–543.
[16] Y.N. Bahar, C. Pere, J. Landrieu, C. Nicolle, A thermal simulation tool for building
and its interoperability through the Building Information Modeling (BIM) plat-
form, Buildings 3 (2) (2013) 380–398.
F.H. Abanda et al.
[17] Banz, Productivity benefits of BIM, undated. (Online) 〈http://www.mbie.govt.nz/
about/whats-happening/news/document-image-library/nz-bim-productivity-
benefits.pdf〉 (12/11/2016).
[18] N. Blismas, Off-site Manufacture in Australia: Current State and Future Directions,
Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, Australia, 2007.
[19] N. Blismas, C. Pasquire, A. Gibb, Benefit evaluation for off-site production in
construction, Constr. Manag. Econ. 24 (2) (2006) 121–130.
[20] N. Blismas, R. Wakefield, Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite manufacture
in Australia, Constr. Innov. 9 (1) (2009) 72–83.
[21] N. Boyd, M.M.A. Khalfan, T. Maqsood, Off-site construction of apartment build-
ings, J. Archit. Eng. 19 (1) (2013) 51–57.
[22] D. Bryde, M. Broqutas, J.M. Volm, The project benefits of Building Information
Modelling (BIM), Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (7) (2013) 971–980.
[23] building Smart UK, Constructing the business case Building Information
Modelling, 2010. (Online) 〈http://www.hfms.org.hu/web/images/stories/BIM/
FreeReport-BIM.pdf〉 (31/03/2016).
[24] Cabinet Office, Government Construction Strategy, UK Government Report,
Cabinet Office, London, 2011.
[25] X. Cao, X. Li, Y. Zhu, Z. Zhang, A comparative study of environmental performance
between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China, J. Clean.
Prod. 109 (2016) 131–143.
[26] I.Y.S. Chan, H.Y. Leung, I.W.H. Fung, M. Leung, How can BIM support construc-
tion safety management? Development of SIM, MATEC Web Conf. 66 (00018)
(2016) 1–5.
[27] Y. Charalabidis, G. Gionis, K.M. Hermann, C. Martinez, Enterprise Interoperability
Research Roadmap, European Commission, Belgium, 2008ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.
eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/enet/ei-roadmap-5-0-draft_en.pdf.
[28] Y. Charalabidis, H. Panetto, E. Loukis, K. Mertins, Interoperability approaches for
enterprises and administrations worldwide, Electron. J. E-Commer. Tools Appl. 2
(3) (2008) 1–10.
[29] Y. Chen, G.E. Okudan, D.R. Riley, Sustainable performance criteria for construc-
tion method selection in concrete buildings, Autom. Constr. 19 (2010) 235–244.
[30] A.L.C. Cirinini, S.M. Ventura, M. Paneroni, Implementation of an interoperable
process to optimise design and construction phases of a residential building: a BIM
pilot project, Autom. Constr. xxx (2016) (pp. xxx-xxx).
[31] E. Christoforou, A. Kylili, P.A. Fokaides, I. Ioannou, Cradle to site Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) of adobe bricks, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (1) (2016) 443–452.
[32] E. Cowles, P. Warner, Prefabrication and Modularization in Construction: 2013:
Survey Results, FMI Corporation, US, 2013https://studylib.net/doc/12039226/
prefabrication-and-modularization-in-construction-2013-su.
[35] B. Delcambre, Mission Numérique Bâtiment, 2014. (Online) 〈http://www.
territoires.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_mission_numerique_batiment.pdf〉 (1/12/
2014).
[36] A. Deshpande, J.B. Whitman, Evaluation of the use of BIM tools for construction
site utilization planning, in: Proceedings of the 50th ASC Annual International
Conference Proceedings, Virginia, USA, 2014.
[37] L. Doumbouya, G. Gao, C. Guan, Adoption of the building information Modeling
(BIM) for construction project effectiveness: the review of BIM benefits, Am. J.
Civ. Eng. Archit. 4 (3) (2016) 74–79.
[38] C. Eastman, R. Sacks, Relative productivity in the AEC industries in the United
States for on-site and off-site activities, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 134 (7) (2008)
517–526.
[39] J. Egan, The Egan Report – Rethinking Construction. Report of the construction
industry task force to the deputy prime minister, London, 1998.
[40] H. Elnaas, K. Gigado, P. Ashton, Factors and drivers effecting the decision of using
off-site manufacturing (OSM) systems in house building industry, J. Eng. Proj.
Prod. Manag. 4 (1) (2014) 51–58.
[41] R. El Meouche, M. Rezoug, I. Hijazi, Integrating and managing BIM in GIS, soft-
ware review, in: International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing
and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XL-2/W2, ISPRS 8th 3DGeoInfo
Conference & WG II/2 Workshop, Istanbul, Turkey, 2013.
[42] V. Ezcan, U. Isikdag, J.S. Goulding, BIM and off-site manufacturing: Recent re-
search and opportunities, in: Proceedings of the International Council for Research
and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) World Building Congress 2013,
Brisbane, Australia, 2013.
[43] M. Farmer, Farmer Review 2016: Modernise or Die, Commissioned and published
by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), UK, 2016.
[44] B.K. Giel, R. Issa, Return on investment analysis of building information modeling
in construction, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 27 (5) (2013) 511–521.
[45] A.G.F. Gibb, Standardisation and case study: distinguishing myth from reality
using case study research, Constr. Manag. Econ. 19 (3) (2001) 307–315.
[46] F. Gibson, A new modular paradigm in Building Information Modeling, Bechtel
Technol. J. 4 (1) (2012) 1–8.
[47] N. Gilkinson, P. Raju, A. Kiviniemi, C. Chapman, Building Information Modelling:
the tide is turning, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Struct. Build. 168 (2) (2015) 81–93.
[48] M.T. Gorgolewski, Prefabrication and sustainability in UK housing, 2004. (Online)
〈http://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/2012/2004%20B9%20papers/174_
Gorgolewski.pdf〉 (1/11/2014).
[49] J. Goulding, F.P. Rahimian, M. Arif, M. Sharp, Offsite construction: strategic
priorities for shaping the future research agenda, J. Architecton. ca 1 (1) (2012)
62–73.
[50] S.-J. Guo, T. Wei, Cost-effective energy saving measures based on BIM technology:
case study at National Taiwan University, Energy Build. 127 (2016) 433–441.
[51] R. Hairstans, Off-site and Modern Methods of Timber Construction: A Sustainable
Approach, TRADA Technology Ltd., High Wycombe, UK, 2010.
[52] K.D. Hall (Ed.), The Green Building Bible: Essential Information to Help You Make
101
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
Your Home and Buildings Less Harmful to the Environment, the Community and
Your Family, 1 Green Building Press, England, 2006(3rd ed).
[53] HM Government, HM Government industrial strategy: construction 2025, 2013.
(Online) 〈https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/210099/bis-13-955-construction-2025-industrial-strategy.
pdf〉 (1/11/2014).
[54] HM Government, Early Adopter Project: Ministry of Justice–Liverpool Local Prison
Post Occupancy Evaluation Used to Update Standard Kitchen Designs. Unclassified
Report, (2013) ((Online) (04/09/2016)), 〈http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/Liverpool-Prison-Case-Study-Final-18-11-13-web.pdf〉.
[55] HMYOI, HMYOI Cookham Wood houseblock and education building, 2013.
(Online) 〈http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/HMYOI-
Cookham-Wood.pdf〉 (15/01/2015).
[56] M.R. Hosseini, M.O. Namzadi, R. Rameezdeen, S. Banihashemi, N. Chileshe,
Barriers to BIM adoption: perceptions from Australian small and medium-sized
interprises (SMES), in: Proceedings of the 40th AUBEA 2016, Radical Innovation
in the Built Environment, Cairns, Australia, 2016.
[57] J. Irizarry, E.P. Karan, F. Jalaei, Integrating BIM and GIS to improve the visual
monitoring of construction supply chain management, Autom. Constr. 31 (2013)
241–254.
[58] S. Isaac, T. Bock, Y. Stolíar, A methodology for the optimal modularization of
building design, Autom. Constr. 65 (2016) 116–124.
[59] N.A.A. Ismail, R. Drogemuller, S. Beazley, R. Owen, A eeview of BIM capabilities
for quantity surveying practice, in: Proceedings of the MATEC Web of
Conferences, vol. 66, 2016, p. 00042. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/
20166IBCC〉.
[60] L. Jaillon, C.S. Poon, Y.H. Chiang, Quantifying waste reduction potential of using
prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong, Waste Manag. 29 (1) (2009)
309–320.
[61] H.A.E.C. Jayasena, M.Y.A.I.M. Yoosuff, H.S. Jayasena Economies of off-site con-
crete construction with BIM, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference
on Sustainable Built Environment. Earl’s Regency Hotel, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 2016.
[62] Y. Ji, K. Li, G. Liu, A. Shrestha, J. Jing, Comparing greenhouse gas emissions of
precast in-situ and conventional construction methods, J. Clean. Prod. (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.143.
[63] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, Life cycle performance of modular buildings: a critical
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62 (2016) 1171–1183.
[64] T. Kasim, H. Li, Y. Rezgui, BREEAM: based dynamic sustainable building design
assessment. Presented at: EG-ICE 2012, Munich, Germany, 2012.
[65] A. Khanzode, M. Fischer, D. Reed, Benefits and lessons learned of implementing
building VDC technologies for coordination of MEP systems on a large healthcare
project, ITcon 13 (2008) 324–342.
[66] D. Kim, Preliminary Life Cycle Analysis of Modular and Conventional Housing in
Benton Harbor (MSc Thesis), University of Michigan, USA, 2008.
[67] C. Koch, B. Firmenich, An approach to distributed building modeling on the basis
of versions and changes, Adv. Eng. Inform. 25 (2) (2011) 297–310.
[68] R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden, R. Bergin, Application of modular construction in high
rise buildings, J. Archit. Eng. 18 (2) (2012) 148–154.
[69] M. Lawson, R. Ogden, C. Goodier, Design in Modular Construction, Taylor and
Francis Group, UK, 2014.
[70] R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden, R. Pedreschi, P.J. Grubb, S.S.O. Ola, Developments in
pre-fabricated systems in light steel and modular construction, Struct. Eng. (2005).
[71] H.W. Lee, H. Oh, Y. Kim, K. Choi, Quantitative analysis of warnings in Building
Information Modelling, Autom. Constr. 97 (2015) 55–68.
[72] J. Lee, J. Kim, BIM-based 4D simulation to improve module manufacturing pro-
ductivity for sustainable building projects, Sustainability 9 (2017) 3.
[73] C.Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G.Q. Shen, X. Xu, L. Luo, SWOT analysis and internet of
things-enabled platform for prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong,
Habitat Int. 57 (2016) 74–87.
[74] C.Z. Li, J. Hong, F. Xue, G.Q. Shen, X. Xu, M.K. Mok, Schedule risks in pre-
fabrication housing production in Hong Kong: a social network analysis, J. Clean.
Prod. xx (2016) 1–13.
[75] J. Li, L. Hou, X. Wang, J. Wang, J. Guo, S. Zhang, Y. Jiao, A project-based
quantification of BIM benefits, Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 11 (2014), http://dx.doi.
org/10.5772/58448.
[76] T. Linner, T. Bock, Evolution of large-scale industrialisation and service innovation
in Japanese prefabrication industry, Constr. Innov. 12 (2) (2012) 156–178.
[77] H. Liu, M.S. Altaf, Z. Lei, M. Lu, M. Al-Hussein, Automated production planning in
panelized construction enabled by integrating discrete-event simulation and BIMm
in: Proceedings of the ICSC15 – The CSCE International Construction Specialty
Conference, Vancouver, Canada, , 2015.
[78] P.E.D. Love, Influence of project type and procurement method on rework costs in
building construction projects, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 128 (1) (2002) 18–29.
[79] P. Love, D. Edwards, Z. Irani, Moving beyond optimism bias and strategic mis-
representation: an explanation of social infrastructure project cost overruns, IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag. (2011).
[80] N. Lu, T.M. Korman, Opportunities for advancement of modular construction
projects using Building Information Modelling (BIM), in: American Society of
Construction 2010 Conference Proceeding, Boston, MA, US, 2010.
[81] W. Lu, A. Fung, Y. Peng, C. Liang, S. Rowlinson, Cost-benefit analysis of Building
Information Modeling implementation in building projects through demystifica-
tion of time-effort distribution curves, Build. Environ. 82 (2014) 317–327.
[82] H. Malekitabar, A. Ardeshir, M.H. Sebt, R. Stouffs, Construction safety risk drivers:
a BIM approach, Saf. Sci. 82 (2016) 445–455.
[83] C. Mao, Q. Shen, L. Shen, L. Tang, Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions
between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: two case
F.H. Abanda et al.
studies of residential projects, Energy Build. 66 (2013) 165–176.
[84] C. Mao, F. Xie, L. Hou, P. Wu, J. Wang, X. Wang, Cost analysis for sustainable off-
site construction based on a multiple case study in China, Habitat Int. 57 (2016)
215–222.
[85] A.H. Memon, I. Abdul-Rahman, N.Y. Zainun, Abd-Karim, Web-based risk assess-
ment technique for time and cost overrun (WRATTCO)-A framework. Procedia-
Social behavioural, Sciences 129 (2013) 178–185.
[86] J. Miles, N. Whitehouse, Off-site housing review, Construction Industry Council,
UK, 2013.
[87] C.A. Mitchell, M. Keaveney, An examination of the potential of Building
Information Modelling to increase the efficiency of Irish contractors on design and
build projects,. in: Proceedings of theInternational Virtual Conference, University
of Zilina, Slovakia, 2013.
[88] A.M. Musa, F.H. Abanda, A.H. Oti, J.H.M. Tah, C. Boton, The potential of 4D
modelling software systems for risk management in construction projects, in:
Proceedings of the 20th CIB World Building Congress 2016, May 30–June 3,
Tampere, Finland, 2016.
[89] A.M. Musa, H. Abanda, H. Oti, Assessment of BIM for managing scheduling risks in
construction project management, in: Proceedings of the CIB W78 Conference,
Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2015.
[90] W. Nadim, J.S. Goulding, Offsite production: a model for building down barriers: a
European construction industry perspective, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 18 (1)
(2011) 82–101.
[91] N.O. Nawari, BIM standard and off-site construction, J. Archit. Eng. 18 (2) (2012)
107–113.
[92] NBIMS, About the national BIM standard-United States, 2015. (Online) 〈http://
www.nationalbimstandard.org/about.php〉 (15/01/2015).
[93] NBS, NBS BIM object standard, 2014. (Online) 〈http://www.nationalbimlibrary.
com/Content/BIMStandard/NBS-BIM-Object-Standard-v1_1.pdf〉 (24/11/2014).
[94] NHBC, A Guide to Modern Methods of Construction, BRE Press, UK, 2006.
[95] T.D. Oesterreich, F. Teuteberg, Understanding the implications of digitisation and
automation in the context of industry 4.0: a triangulation approach and elements
of a research agenda for the construction industry, Comput. Ind. 83 (2016)
121–139.
[96] A.H. Oti, W. Tizani, F.H. Abanda, A. Jaly-Zada, J.H.M. Tah, Structural sustain-
ability appraisal in BIM, Autom. Constr. 69 (2016) 44–68.
[97] A.A. Owolabi, C.J. Anumba, A. El-Hamalawi, Towards implementing integrated
building product libraries, Constr. Innov. 3 (3) (2003) 175–194.
[98] S. Palos, A. Kiviniemi, J. Kuusisto, Future perspectives on product data manage-
ment in Building Information Modelling, Constr. Innov. 14 (1) (2013) 52–68.
[99] W. Pan, A.G. Gibb, A.R. Dainty, Strategies for integrating the use of off-site pro-
duction technologies in house building, Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (11) (2012)
1331–1340.
[100] W. Pan, C. Goodier, Housebuilding business and off-site construction take-up, J.
Archit. Eng. 18 (20) (2012) 84–93.
[101] P. Patlakas, A. Livingstone, R. Hairstans, A BIM platform for offsite timber con-
struction, in: The Proceedings of Education and Research in Computer Aided
Architectural Design in Europe, Vienna, Austria, 2015, pp. 16–18.
[102] P. Patlakas, J. Menendez, R. Hairstans, The potential, requirements and limitations
of BIM for offsite timber construction, Int. J. 3-D Inf. Model. 4 (1) (2015) 54–70.
[103] E. Papadonikolaki, R. Vrijhoef, H. Wamelink, The interdependences of BIM and
supply chain partnering: empirical explorations, Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. (2016).
[104] Postnote, Modern Methods of Construction, Parliamentary Office of Science and
Technology, UK, 2003 (No 209. (Online) (04/09/2016)), 〈http://www.
parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn209.pdf〉.
[105] J. Quale, M.J. Eckelman, K.W. Williams, G. Sloditskie, J.B. Zimmerman,
Construction matters: comparing environmental impacts of building modular and
conventional homes in the United States, J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (2) (2012) 243–253.
[106] M. Reizgevičius, L. Ustinovičius, R. Rasiuslis, Efficiency evaluation of 4D CAD
model, Procedia Eng. 57 (2013) 945–951.
[107] R. Rezaei, T.K. Chiew, S.P. Lee, Z.S. Aliee, A semantic interoperability framework
for software as a service systems in cloud computing environments, Expert Syst.
Appl. 41 (13) (2014) 5751–5770.
[108] R. Rezaei, T.K. Chiew, S.P. Lee, Z.S. Aliee, Interoperability evaluation models: a
systematic review, Comput. Ind. 65 (1) (2014) 1–23.
[109] A.L. Rogan, R.M. Lawson, N. Bates-Brkljac, Value and Benefits Assessment of
Modular Construction, Steel Construction Institute, UK, 2000.
[110] K. Ross, Achieving Best Practice in Modern Methods of Construction, Building
Research Establishment,, UK, 2005.
[111] H. Said, K. El-Rayes, Automated multi-objective construction logistics optimiza-
tion system, Autom. Constr. 43 (2014) 110–122.
[112] T. Samarasinghe, P. Mendis, T. Ngo, W.J.B.S. Fernando, BIM software framework
for prefabricated construction: case study demonstrating BIM implementation on a
modular house, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Structural
102
Journal of Building Engineering 14 (2017) 89–102
Engineering and Construction Management, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 2015.
[113] A. Sawhney, R. Agnihotri, V.K. Paul, Grand challenges for the Indian construction
industry, Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 4 (4) (2014) 317–334.
[114] D. Schünmann, BIM: Seize the opportunity for your business, 2013. (Online)
〈http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/
BIMsupplement2013_download_v2.pdf〉 (30/11/2014).
[115] R. Sebastian, W. Haak, E. Vos, BIM application for integrated design and en-
gineering in small scale housing development: a pilot project in the Netherlands,
in: Proceedings of the Future Trends in Architectural Management, International
Symposium CIB-W096 2009 Taiwan, Tainan, Taiwan, 2009.
[116] S. Sen, The Impact of BIM/VDC on ROI – Developing a Financial Model for Savings
and ROI Calculation of Construction Projects (MSc thesis), Department of Real
Estate and Construction Management, KTH Architecture and the Built
Environment, Sweden, 2012https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.340468!/Menu/
general/column-content/attachment/Thesis_Salih_SEN_final.pdf.
[117] J. Shade, T. Olofsson, M. Schreyer, Decision-making in a model-based design
process, Constr. Manag. Econ. 29 (4) (2011) 371–382.
[118] F. Shadram, T.D. Johansson, W. Lu, J. Schade, T. Olofsson, An integrated BIM-
based framework for minimizing embodied energy during building design, Energy
Build. 128 (2016) 592–604.
[119] Z. Shehu, G.D. Holt, I.R. Endut, A. Akintoye, Analysis of characteristics affecting
completion time for Malaysian construction projects, Built Environ. Proj. Asset
Manag. 5 (1) (2015) 52–68.
[120] Z. Shen, R.R.A. Issa, Quantitative evaluation of the BIM-assisted construction de-
tailed cost estimates, J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 15 (2010) 234–257.
[121] R. Stanley, D. Thurnell, The benefits of, and barriers to, implementation of 5D BIM
for quantity surveying in New Zealand, Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 14 (1)
(2014) 105–117.
[122] D.A. Steinhardt, K. Manley, Adoption of prefabricated housing-the role of country
context, Sustain. Cities Soc. 22 (2016) 126–135.
[123] P.C. Suermann, R.R.A. Issa, Evaluating industry perceptions of Building
Information Modelling (BIM) impact on construction, ITcon 14 (2009) 574–594.
[124] V.W.Y. Tam, I.W.H. Fung, M.P. Sing, S.O. Ogunlana, Best practice of prefabrica-
tion implementation in the Hong Kong public and private sectors, J. Clean. Prod.
109 (2015) 216–231.
[125] X. Tan, A. Hammad, P. Fazio, Automated code compliance checking for building
envelope design, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 24 (20) (2010) 203–211.
[126] V.K. Vernikos, Optimising Building Information Modelling and off-site construc-
tion for civil engineering, Civ. Eng. 165 (CE4) (2012) 147.
[127] V.K. Vernikos, C.I. Goodier, T.W. Broyd, P.C. Robery, A.G.F. Gibb, Building
Information Modelling and its effect on off-site construction in UK civil en-
gineering, Proc. ICE – Manag. Procure. Law 167 (MP3) (2014) 152–159.
[128] P. Waskett, Current Practice and Potential Uses of Prefabrication. DTI
Construction Industry Directorate Project Report, Department of Trade and
Industry, UK, 2001.
[129] A. Warszawski, Industrialized and automated building systems, E. & F.N. Spon,
London, 1999.
[130] J. Won, J.C.P. Cheng, G. Lee, Quantification of construction waste prevented by
BIM-based design validation: case studies in South Korea, Waste Manag. 49 (2016)
170–180.
[131] J.K.-W. Wong, K.-L. Kuan, Implementing ‘BEAM Plus’ for BIM-based sustainability
analysis, Autom. Constr. 44 (2014) 163–175.
[132] F.W.H. Wong, P.T.I. Lam, E.H.W. Chan, L.Y. Shen, A study of measures to improve
constructability, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 24 (2007) 586–601.
[133] K.-D. Wong, Q. Fan, Building Information Modelling (BIM) for sustainable
building design, Facilities 31 (¾) (2013) 138–157.
[134] R. Yunus, J. Yang, Critical sustainability factors of industrialised building systems,
Constr. Innov. 12 (4) (2012) 447–463.
[135] R. Yunus, J. Yang, Improving ecological performance of industrialized building
systems in Malaysia, Constr. Manag. Econ. 32 (1–2) (2014) 183–195.
[136] M.A. Zanni, R. Soetanto, K. Ruikar, Defining the sustainable building design
process: methods for BIM execution planning in the UK, Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag.
8 (4) (2014).
[137] M. Zenga, A. Javor, Modular Homes: The Future has Arrived, Cronos Press, 2008
(ISBN-10: 1604140674).
[138] X. Zhai, R. Reed, A. Mills, Factors impeding the offsite production of housing
construction in China: an investigation of current practice, Constr. Manag. Econ.
32 (1-2) (2014) 40–52.
[139] S. Zhang, J. Teizer, J.-K. Lee, C.M. Eastman, M. Venugopal, Building Information
Modeling (BIM) and safety: automatic safety checking of construction models and
schedules, Autom. Constr. 29 (2013) 183–195.
[140] C. Zhang, T. Zayeb, W. Hijazi, S. Alkass, Quantitative assessment of building
constructability using BIM and 4D simulation, Open J. Civ. Eng. 6 (2016)
442–461.